JUDGMENT
Surjit Singh, J.
1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate whereby the respondents, who were sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted.
2. First, the prosecution version, as per record, may be noticed. On 7.5.1994, around 9.30 p.m., when PW-4 Dhani Ram was going towards his village after closing his shop situated at Bus Stand Baijnath, truck No. HPK-7497, driven by respondent Pinku, overtook him. Pinku was a friend of said Dhani Ram. So, he stopped the truck and offered him a lift. Dhani Ram boarded the cabin of the truck. Truck was taken to a place called Ustehar, situated at a distance of 2 kms. from Bus Stand Baijnath. PW-1 Neeru, who is a brother of PW-4 Dhani Ram, noticed that Dhani Ram had been pulled inside the cabin of the truck and gathered the impression that the truck driver and other occupants thereof were likely to manhandle him. At that time he was travelling in his Maruti Van, which was being driven by PW-2 Trilok Chand. One more person by the name of Raju was there in that Van. On reaching Ustehar, Pinku pushed PW-4 Dhani Ram out of the cabin of the truck. In the meanwhile, PW-1 Neeru, PW-2 Trilok Chand and one Raju also reached by the Van, on the spot. When Neeru asked Pinku and the other two respondents, who were also there in the cabin of the truck, as to why PW-4 Dhani Ram had been pushed down, respondent Pinku allegedly hit him on his head with a stone, which caused fracture of the temporal parietal bone. Other respondents also joined Pinku in pelting stones at PW-1 Neeru, PW-4 Dhani Ram and PW-2 Trilok Chand, the driver of the Van. All the three sustained a number of injuries.
2.2. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day. Police got the injured medically examined. Medical Examination of PW-1 Neeru showed that he had suffered fracture of temporal region. Police investigated the case and challaned all the three respondents.
2.3. Trial Court charged the three respondents with offences punishable under Sections 325 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and, on their pleading not guilty, put them on trial. At the end of the trial, all the three respondents were acquitted. The trial Court observed that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, viz. the two injured and PW-2 Trilok Chand, which made the prosecution version doubtful.
3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General, learned Counsel for the respondents and also gone through the record.
4. The contradictions, which have been noticed by the trial Court, in no way make the prosecution story doubtful, with respect to the infliction of the injuries to PW-1 Neeru and PW-4 Dhani Ram, and the involvement of respondent Pinku in the infliction of such injuries, even though the contradictions create a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the other two respondents.
5. There is unchallenged testimony of PW-1 Neeru that he was hit on the head by Pinku with stones and a rod. The testimony of the witness with regard to the use of rod is even though not corroborated by PW-2 Trilok Chand and PW-4 Dhani Ram yet both of them have testified in no uncertain terms that Neeru was hit on the head with a stone by Pinku and their testimony, particularly that of PW-4 Dhani Ram, to this effect has not been subjected to cross-examination. Suggestions were put to Dhani Ram in the course of cross-examination by the respondents that there were only two persons in the truck. Admitting the suggestion he stated that one of them was respondent Pinku and other one was the conductor of the truck whose name he did not know. No suggestion was put to the witness that the incident, as testified by him, had not taken place. Even this much was not suggested to him that he had made a false statement. The testimony of the doctors examined by the prosecution, namely PW-7 Dr. B.B. Sharma and PW-8 Dr. Nirdosh, also corroborate the testimony of PW-1 Neeru, PW-2 Trilok Chand and PW-4 Dhani Ram with respect to the injury on the head of PW-1 Neeru.
6. It was pointed out that there was contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 Neeru and PW-4 Dhani Ram with regard to the object by which the injury on the head of PW-1 Neeru was caused. It was submitted that while PW-1 Neeru claimed that the injury was caused to him by means of a rod by respondent Pinku, while PW-4 Dhani Ram stated that it was caused by means of a stone by the same respondent and this created a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. The argument in no way points to the innocence of Pinku. In view of this contradiction, of course, it cannot be said whether the injury was caused by means of a rod or with a stone and whether it was caused by Pinku respondent himself or the conductor of the truck, but the fact remains that both Pinku, the driver of the truck, and the conductor of the truck pelted stones in furtherance of their common intention and, hence, respondent Pinku, about whose identity there is no dispute, is liable for conviction and punishment for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
7. In the face of the aforesaid evidence, trial Court’s judgment with respect to the acquittal of respondent Pinku cannot be upheld. The finding of the trial Court, in the face of said evidence, to the effect that the entire case of the prosecution against all the three respondents is doubtful, is perverse.
8. As regards the other two respondents, evidence is contradictory. According to the testimony of PW-1 Neeru, there were three persons, including Pinku, who pelted stones at him. Dhani Ram, however, says that only Pinku, who was the driver of the truck, and one person, who was the conductor of the truck and whose name he does not know, were involved in the commission of the crime. It is not clear from the evidence on record as to which of the remaining two respondents, namely Vinod, Kumar and Sanju, was the conductor on the truck or he was some other person. Therefore, the finding of acquittal given by the trial Court in favour of respondents Vinod Kumar and Sanju does not call for interference.
9. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is partly accepted, judgment of the trial Court so far as it pertains to the acquittal of respondent Pinku is set aside and he is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Let he be produced in person on 15th November, 2007 for being heard on the question of quantum of sentence.